E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Morris Mac Matzen / Reuters, file
An Airbus A380 aircraft is seen in the paint shop at the Airbus facility in Finkenwerder, Germany, on Jan. 17.
Updated at 9:40 a.m. ET: BERLIN -- Europe's aviation watchdog called for checks Wednesday on the entire worldwide fleet of Airbus A380 superjumbo jets for cracks on parts inside the wings.
The European Aviation Safety Agency's (EASA) move to inspect all 68 A380s in service came as Qantas Airways grounded one of its planes, saying engineers had found 36 wing cracks after the aircraft encountered severe turbulence.
By signaling that the defects may be structural and widespread, the fleet-wide inspection order will refocus attention on flaws identified in flagship jets at both Airbus and Boeing.
Both aircraft makers maintain that their newest jets remain safe to fly after problems were caught at an early stage. On Tuesday, Japan Airlines said it no longer expects its first 787 Dreamliner from Boeing by the end of February due to a fresh manufacturing glitch. The issue involves shims, which are spacers between the 787's skin and the parts that support it.
EASA last month ordered checks on one-third of the A380 fleet after cracks were found in a handful of the thousands of L-shaped brackets that fix each wing's exterior to its internal ribcage-like structure. That order applied to the 20 planes that have flown the most.
'Long-term fix'
EASA's updated airworthiness directive "covers the A380 fleet as they approach 1,300 flight cycles and validates the ongoing inspection and repairs on the 20 aircraft covered by the first AD," Airbus, a unit of European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co., said in a statement.
EASA spokesman Dominique Fouda said the agency is "working with Airbus on a long-term fix that should be ready by the summer."
Qantas said it discovered dozens of hairline cracks in a jet's wings during a maintenance inspection. The Australian flagship carrier said the 36 small fissures posed no threat to safety.
Qantas workers found the cracks, measuring less than 0.8 inches long, in the "wing rib feet" after the aircraft hit severe turbulence on a flight from London to Singapore last month. The cracks were not related to the turbulence and were linked to an Airbus manufacturing issue, the airline said in a statement.
Qantas conducted routine checks after the turbulence incident, then conducted "additional precautionary inspections" on the wings at Airbus' request, the airline said. The cracking was discovered in the precautionary inspections, Qantas said.
Qantas is working to repair the cracks and said it expects the plane to be back in the air within a week.
Qantas spokesman Tom Woodward said the cracks are the same type the airline recently found in the wing ribs of an A380 that is being repaired in Singapore following the disintegration of an engine in midflight in 2010. The 2010 engine failure was the most significant safety issue an A380 has faced since it began passenger flights in 2007, and prompted airlines to temporarily ground 20 of the planes.
The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.
Leave a Comment:
To me it sounds scary, If an engine falls off during flight. U want get me on that plane.
Airbus has had no end of problems with the A380. While Boeing has had issues with the 787, they are related to production issues, not the design of the aircraft itself. Airbus, on the other hand, seems to have design flaws in the A380 that are resulting in problems with in service aircraft experiencing failures, something Boeing has not seen with the 787. I feel much safer on a Boeing plane than an Airbus plane.
Does anyone here know how to type complete coherent sentences?
Brian, No but there are schools u could attend,.
JS in SD:
Check the stats (airsafe.com) then get back to me about how you feel.
So many cracks in planes so relatively new. Be nice to know if when they built alum planes and put similar miles on 'em how many cracks there were. Composite fiber planes do not seem to be very durable. Agree that Airbus is not as competent as Boeing. The Airbus that crashed from Brazil was blamed on iced Pitot tubes. Pitot tubes are a 60 year old technology. Why would a modern aircraft manufacturer put planes in the air where the pitot tubes are not designed for high altitude severe cold and moisture conditions? Could be the same root cause as the cracks in the composite fiber. Saving money to beat those nasty Americans at Boeing. Steal their market share by being cheaper, then when Boeing collapses and is out of business Airbus will get all their market share. But in the mean time, a few people are going to have to go down hard to make the business plan happen.
And yet it's still waaaaayyyy safer to fly than to drive. Modern aircraft are marvels of engineering and I would have no problem getting on board any one of them. My only fear of the A380 is terrorists flying one of them into my house. Call me crazy, but I'm keeping the mattresses on the roof. Extra firm.
@Brian,
You might check out Home Schooling??
I would not fly on a 380 - it is an accident waiting to happen.
I would not fly on a 787 - it is an accident waiting to happen.
Neither will prove to be airworthy when all is said and done.
I might add, that our gubmint is in a headlong rush to accomodate Airbus too. as soon as the 380 rolled out they spent $75 mil US reworking LAX runways to accomodate the 380. I haven't heard about elsewhere. Remember a couple of years ago the Air Force wanted to buy air tankers from Airbus ! Now we have the crack problem. IT wasn't the US FAA that grounded any 380's. Quantas grounded one of theirs and the Euro watchdog called for inspections. THE FAA is silent. Is this another example of the US gubmint so deep in bed with a corporation they are overlooking a real safety issue ? And if they are going to be in bed with a corporation, why pick Airbus ?
JS in SD
The problem on the A380 just like the one on the 787 is a manufacturing problem, it has nothing to do with the planes design. It is the way the part is made and the material it is made from that caused the problem.
BTW many section of the A380 wing come from the same company that build the forward fuselage for every Boeing plane being built today.
I refer to #3.0. SHAME MSMBC.
Press censorship huh ! So-called Freedom in the USA. USA is no different than China, maybe even worst than China. USA hypocrite. What about Human Rights. Bullsh*t. Freedom of expression, Bullsh*t. Police Crack-down of OWS. Police brutality, police use truncheons and shields to beat up peaceful demonstrators in Wall Street. Gross Human Rights violation, you just call it a little "Civil" Rights problem? Same thing happen in China, it would be condemned as Gross Violation of Human Rights.
Scary. Western made products are junk. Quantas Boeing 747 plane exploded leacing a huge gaping hole in the fuselage. Again another Airbus 380 has an Rolls-Royce engine exploded. Rolls-Royce engines leaking oil causing dangerous risk of explosion and engine failure in flight.
Now Airbus 380 has cracks all over the place. Western plane manufacturers are going bonkers.
Better out-source your plane manufactring to China. China is making its own planes now. The ARJ21 and the C919 will be taking to the air very soon. Can't wait to fly China made planes. Buy China-made products anytime. They make good quality products. Go China Go.
Your either being a paid or a total moron, and probably both. No one believes what your selling so get the eff of of our comment pages, your country doesn't own them yet.
he is being utterly sarcastic, something that went waaay above your head....
You go right ahead , i have worked in the aerospace industry in the USA since 1959 , we are not perfect but the other countries are much worse . just look at the ship problems on vacation liners, most of the ships are regestered in forign ports because american standards are too high. Good luck SINGA you're going to need it !!!
Engineering: Ah it'll be alright!
See the USA in a Chevrolet................
singa - you are truly a moron.
The problem with Chinese made airplanes is that they are made of paper and disinitegrate in the rain! Much as the majority of the crap they peddle in other countries, especially the USA.
You are very very stupid.
Chinese make tail feathers for the 737
Shame MSNBC.
Press censorship huh ! So-called Freedom in the USA. USA is no different than China, maybe even worst than China. USA hypocrite. What about Human Rights. Bullsh*t. Freedom of expression, Bullsh*t. Police Crack-down of OWS. Police brutality, police use truncheons and shields to beat up peaceful demonstrators in Wall Street. Gross Human Rights violation, you just call it a little "Civil" Rights problem? Same thing happen in China, it would be condemned as Gross Violation of Human Rights.
Used to fly everywhere, all the time. Now, it's just one big pain in the ass.
Ditto Beev !!! So glad I don't have to fly anymore unless it's my choice..
flying is the easy part - GETTING TO THE AIRCRAFT IS DIFFICULT
Nah.... no worries, until the wings start falling off.
This story of the Airbus and Boeing aircraft reminds me of the "Comet" of many years ago. It was one of the first commercial jets to fly. Unfortunately due to a major design flaw involving metal fatique these planes started to fall out of the sky and then they disappeared overnight. Working with composites is relatively new, especially on large scale aircraft. We just might not "be there" just yet.
yeah, square windows brought the comet down.
Now carbon fiber airplanes,think I'll give it ten years or so before I get on one.
I would get aboard right now. I think ten years will be when some big composite parts are going to be falling off these planes. I love composites for what they're suited for but unlike these aluminum parts that are showing stress failure cracks carbon fiber composites don't give the luxury of warning signs it will be instant catastrophic failure. No warning. Fly them now.
Actually, the beauty of "composite reinforced carbon fiber" is that tiny cracks will show in the surface for years while the nearly indestructible carbon cloth underneath is still very much intact. It's the exact opposite of what HP is saying, failure comes very gradually, with tons of warning.
plus for all intents and purposes, carbon fiber just DOES NOT CRACK IN SERVICE. UTTERLY IMMUNE to fatigue cracks (but it has a major problem with "ramp rash" BECAUSE the underlying damage is essentially invisible)
Most people don't understand that the main issue with carbon structure is lightning protection. Carbon just doesn't conduct AT ALL - and that's a major issue around fuel tanks
What I'm getting at is that when metal exceeds it design limits it will bend or crack in effect showing it has stressed while carbon fiber is more prone to complete failure due to less ability to flex because of it's stiffness.
actually, if you KNOW you pushed against the limits, the structure can be tested (ain't easy and ain't CHEAP, either - ultrasonic probe). because of the nature of the material, as long as the resin didn't loosen from around the carbon fiber you won't see any spurious echos. When you see extra echos, that's indication of a "de-lam" (delamination - the pieces pulled apart and what was "one" piece is now 2 and the structural strength is reduced significantly) I mentioned ramp rash before - lets say a delivery truck whacks a fuselage just aft of the service door. Only scraped the paint, eh? Well...no IF the truck hit it hard enough there might not be much damage on the surface, but damage CAN propagate down into the structure and be essentially "invisible". What used to be a "cut and patch" is now almost a major repair because of needing to determine the extent of the damage. The rules changed with the composite structure.
ron46 - the Comet failures were not just about metal fatigue. The skin-to-longeron rivets were in long, uninterrupted rows (with no "stops"). When a rivet, or two, failed the rows just opened up like a zipper removing the skin from the supporting primary structure.
They crashed several before they discovered this phenomenon and it has been part of basic aircraft design ever since.
Well, let's examine some of China's products shall we?
Food: Where to start? From the steroid-spiked pork, the glow-in-the-dark meat, or recycled cooking oil collected from sewers - brings a whole new meaning to "Mystery meat". Of course, you heard about the tainted milk, right? How about diseased pigs used to make bacon, sausages made from rotten mean and fertilizer? Noodles made from corn, ink and paraffin. China: Where junk food is king.
So, you think China's aerospace products are superior? The chinese have a long history with rockets. And yet, the Long March rocket was one of the most unreliable vehicles made. And you guys have had problems with your launchers as well. In fact, when it comes to the worst space-related disaster happened in Xichang on Feb. 15, 1996.
Numerious products have been imported from China only to be found to be defective. From tained dry wall to automobile tires. Increasingly, buying chinese products is like thowing dice at a craps table. Do you honestly think that the Chinese will change their attitude when it comes to building aircraft?
whats that got to do with subject in hand
I believe gumps is referring to the growing Chinese aircraft manufacturing business. China has announced and is deligentlyworking on competing with Boeing and Airbus. Of course Boeing is making parts in China that go in Boeing aircraft. China is of course taking that technology and transferring it to their own brands - saving billions in R&D. Gumps is reffering to the total lack of QC in China and their tendancy to lie, cheat and steal for profit. Poisoning your children is not a problem for Chinese Executives because they also do it to Chinese children. So it's not a leap in logic to expect they will make bad parts for American plane manufacturers. The Boeing inspectors have a repsonsibility in China they do not have in Kansas or Seattle. Namely, check for DESIGN flaws purposely inbedded in the product by the chinese contractors and subcontractors. Fail to do this QC and China will sabotage your products.
While we are talking about the chinese I would like to insert a few choice comments.
1. The US government is allowing our Corporations to "downsize" with outsourceing.
2. Our own educators are teaching that "Globalization" is a great idea.
3. The North America Free Trading Agreement is destroying the American middle class.
4. China is waging a war in our Markets. (they seem to be kicking our butts)
5. The profits that are being made are not trickling down. (the upper 1% are rakeing it in)
I'm retired and am in the middle of getting a degree in business management. I'm shocked by the things that they are teaching. Read "Management, Challenges for Tomorrow's Leaders", by South Western/Cengage learning. I'm a staunch Unionist. Those days are disappearing fast. It's hard to fight with a union when the management can say "give up your insurance or we'll just move the plant to Juarez". The great God "PROFIT" is destoying us. I'm actually thinking of moving my family to the end of the road somewhere and just letting it all go to hell without us.
bigdaddy - what the heck does any of this have to do with the Airbus-related article?
If they were made in China, they would contain way too much lead to get off the ground, even the paint would be lead based, and even NASA Shuttle engines couldn't produce enough thrust, to lift those lead weights....Go back to China, please....and take your chinese drywall, lead based painted toys / products, and, and, and, with you...Bring US manufacturing back home !!!!
it's about time they started looking at these 380's. i'm tired of reading news stories every other week of these things breaking apart at altitute after an encounter with the deadly cirrus cloud.
Since China's M.O. has always been to produce products that are cosmetically similar junk as the lowest bidder, the pro-China comment (which was delusion, not sarcasm) is an absurd stretch. If China were made to adhere to any of the quality, regulatory or environmental standards that Western countries have to contend with, they would have exactly zero products in the marketplace. The very reason that we even know about these miniscule defects is because of the extremely conservative safety standards and complete transparency that Airbus and Boeing are subject to, neither of which has ever happened in China.
there is "domestic quality" and "export quality" in Chinese manufacture. If you think that all Chinese produced hardware is "junk" I would suggest that you stop riding on 737s - the tail feathers are made in China.
So what?
airplane usually have 2 wings, if one falls you still have another one.
LOL
to73 - if that is really the case them chop off one of your legs and see if you can walk (without hopping).
It's simple, if your going on a long distance flight make sure the aircraft is a 747-400
Have you seen the Boeing 757, especially business class? Nice.
To usafeveteran:
You know your aircraft.
or even better. Take an extra wing with you in case of an emergency
maybe it's still a bit early for them, but i'm curious to read what all the armchair engineers will say about this, knowing now that the cracks are in the brackets that hold the wings to the fuselage. i can understand the need to flex... hell, even the chinese have a saying (possibly the only chinese-made export that isn't, in some way, defective): "the tree that does not bend in the wind will be broken by the wind". but if metal cracks, that usually means that the stresses are too much for it.
and if they're saying that ALL jets should be inspected... that's a 'holy @!$%#! that ain't right' kind of statement.
granted, these guys aren't the ones who designed the jet, and they might be comparable to peta saying something like, 'don't kick dogs', but if they're worried, then that's cause for concern.
Jerk,
Please learn to read, they are in the barckets that hold the Wing Skin to the Wing Rib. Also if you read further you will see that problem is in how the bracket is made at the factory, and installed, it has nothing to do with the bend in the wing.
i hope some of it wasnt made in china which would account for it being cracked lol
Another small comment. A few years back the Union Pacific Railroad"Building America" bought a whole @!$%#load of "Knuckles" from China. Knuckles are the cast steel part of the car that pivot and lock the train cars together. There is a pin that acts as a locking mechanism to keep the Knuckle from reopening. The knuckles are supposed to be rated for a minimum amount of tons. Unfortunately, when thse knuckles were cast they had flaws in them. You could put one in and move the train. It would last about 2 miles. Then if you were lucky it would just break and the train would separate. If you were unlucky it would break and the train would Jack knife and pile up with whatever was in those cars. Hazmat,coal, whatever. Man they sure saved alot of money on those parts. I don't have any idea how many fell apart. It was lots though.
I'm not sure who made those decisions. Don't really care. If you buy something frome wal marts you get Wal mart prices and walmart quality. If we stop buying goods made in China, and made sure that all of the Management knew we would persist, they would have to start manufacturing here.
Let's all get together and start a "Building America" program of our own. Let's make our government repeal NAFTA. Let's make our businesses provide goods made in America.
Yeah, and the UAW has been producing high quality American cars for decades, right? Only recently have they come up to par, when they realized they'd be out of a job if they didn't improve.
bigdaddysdawg
Please do tell us, all un-knowing one, what does China have to do with repealing NAFTA, just how is one connected to the other? Cut and paste is easy, but you should read it first.
You don't worry about the 68 small cracks. You worry about the one BIG crack.
Yeah, tell that to the victims of the I-35 Bridge Collapse.
another built in design flaw
Sounds and looks like the SuperJumbo plane will not be around long..Such a waste of money..Buy American planes
800
Seems boeing is having a similar problem.
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20120206/boeing-shares-slip-as-it-addresses-787-issues.htm
That's a stretch, Gorilla. The trajectory of commercial flight over the past 70-80 years is bigger, bigger, bigger... and better. Guys like Richard Branson will have us taking suborbital space flights in the not too distant future, starting on small, expensive, exclusive craft and then... bigger, bigger, bigger and better.
Bigger, bigger, bigger, and better. Wow! The airline folks can really start to overbook then!! Wonder what American Airlines thinks of the plan??
if the 380 doesn't succeed it will be a matter of routes and loading - the aircraft itself is OK - it's just B I G
probably just where the paint seperated over a seam - no worries......
brucev
I have never heard of an aircraft manufacture grounding an aircraft because of cracking paint.
I think we have reached a point of diminishing returns on the size of jumbo aircraft. When the first one goes down and 500 souls are gone, then the organic fertilizer will hit the fan and Airbus will be out of business.
I think I'll stick with the proven older designs for awhile.
Checking cracks huh? The only crack being checked in an airport is between your butt cheeks.
Oh boy Chinese building airplanes! Will we be able to buy them in WAL MART?
AIRBUS just big oversized POS plastic crap !
Boeing is having the same issues with their plastic aircraft...the release has been delayed multiple times because they can't figure out a way to secure the composites without it stress cracking during testing.
The A380 is not a plastic plane, the A350 will be the first composite for Airbus, and it wont fly for some time yet.
want to bet that the 350 wings will be metal - at least the fuel tanks will be metal?? Lightning protection is verrry difficult in composite (there is a layer of expanded foil under the skin in the 787).
When the front wheel broke on my Chinese made MoPed, I was saved by my Korean made helmet.
What do you expect from aircraft designed by a committee of countries? With manufacturing distributed across several countries by force, not by manufacturing excellence, things like this are bound to happen. Boeing will suffer from something similar since it distributed its manufacturing for political, not technical, reasons.
Boeing is like every other large company. Globalization is the by word these days. Cheap labor, less taxes, fewer or no environmental protection laws. How could they not do this. Our government lets them. We let them. The people who own stock in Boeing demands it. EVERYONE BOW TO THE GREAT GOD PROFIT.
Airbus and Boeing both assemble planes from parts made all over the world, get over it. Airbus buys wings and fuselage section from US, and Boeing buys Wings and fuselage sections from Europe and Japan. Just like with cars many of the suppliers work for both companies.
Airbus wings are made in Britain (like it or not). Never mind that Boeing had to go hold the hands of Alenia so they could MAKE parts in the first place and actually BOUGHT the Vought fuselage barrel production facility in Charleston (where the 2nd 787 assembly plant was ultimately located).
787 was a start-up production fiasco - too much reliance on the supplier's saying "Sure... we can do that!" without ANY evidence of ability. The Japanese suppliers are the better of the group, though.
watchbird-is-watching
A380 wings come from Britain, A350 wing and center fuselage come from North Carolina, from the same company that supplies much of the Boeing fleet with parts. True they purchased the suppliers plants in SC, as they were already planning a new assembly plant there. Nobody knew how to make these new fuselage barrels, because nobody including Boeing had done it before. But those same to suppliers you spoke have worked on many Boeing planes, and both continue to supply Boeing.
uh... the purchase was because Vought couldn't get it correct. They couldn't do it without Boeing support (funny how the Japanese COULD do it, though, isn't it?) and the on-site support at Alenia was continuous. 320 and 330 wings both come from Britain
36 cracks in the brackets that hold the skin on the wing structure but it's no big deal! Seriously! As an aircraft mechanic for the USAF I saw planes grounded for much less! But the USAF fills these planes with expensively trained people so of course they don't want them killed. Apparently the airlines have no such qualms.
They didn't say if these were carbon fiber parts but I'm guess they are on the A380? It's looking like both Airbus and Boeing have overestimated the strength and resiliency of carbon fiber. Sounds like they are getting stress fractures almost immediately. I'm sure they did extensive testing to prove the air worthiness of CF parts but it's looking like they both missed something important. It's not like CF hasn't been used to replace steel and aluminum in any number of applications with superior results. Maybe they both just under-engineered a part. After all both these planes probably have well over a million parts that were newly designed for them. It's expected that some of these will be discovered to need improvements over time. It happens with every design. BTW, Boeing is saying their failures are due to incorrect manufacturing. Again, it's bound to happen with a new design but let's hope they don't kill us in the process.
when I was in navy I found a 4in crack in wing of an A-6 and you know what happen , It got a one time flight too Norfolk 8 miles away to be gutted and sent too graveyard ...via train and trucks
The issue is with finding a way to secure the new composite materials without them cracking over time. The new planes are made of plastic essentially so they can carry more passengers and save weight. Why do you think the release of Boeing's composite plane has been delayed so many times...figuring out a way to secure plastic without it cracking.
Brian-546328
CF and the A380? The A380 is not made of CF, that would be the Boeing 787 that is made of CF. Second a real mechanic would know that stress happens in certain places on a wing in flight, these cracks are found on parts that are under no flight stress to speak of as well as areas that are. The reason for that is because like the problem Boeing found last week, it is caused by the manufacturing process, not by flight issues.
For Airbus it has to do with how the aluminum 7449 parts are formed at installed, that creates the cracks, for Boeing it was shimes were installed in one section from one plant.
Carbon fiber technology in aviation has been around for nearly half a century. The SR-71/YA-12, (Blackbird,) fastest plane in the world, still, is mainly made of two materials, titanium, and carbon fiber and they were finally retired a few years ago. And that plane was designed and built in the early 60's, using a bunch of paper and slide rules, (no readily available computers back then.)
Airbus, Boeing, and all the other aircraft manufacturers are using technology they got from the development programs originated for the military, and this includes using composite materials and carbon fiber.
Saying that, with any manufacturing operation, if good quality control is not adhered to, and monitored very closely, problems will develop. Where it affects us is when serious problems appear, such as a major airliner losing a large, intercontinental airliner, with all its passengers, because of such a manufacturing flaw.